bigmrg74 Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 Scholarships Reductions Hurt Division 2 A great editorial by Brandon Misener from D2football.com. I think you guys should be very interested in it, seems how if the reductions do pass, you guys would probably move up, doing exactly what Brandon says will happen to all of the top D2 teams. Besides, if they can't fund 36, go try NAIA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bisonfan01234 Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 I think the idea is to get different teams winning the championship each year. It was nice to see someone other than GV and ND winning it all this year. Personally I think the NCAA should get rid of all scholarships and go to grant based aid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmrg74 Posted January 7, 2005 Author Share Posted January 7, 2005 I think the idea is to get different teams winning the championship each year. It was nice to see someone other than GV and ND winning it all this year. Personally I think the NCAA should get rid of all scholarships and go to grant based aid. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You mean Parity?? Parity only works in the NFL!! 1990 North Dakota St 1991 Pittsburg State 1992 Jacksonville State 1993 North Alabama 1994 North Alabama 1995 North Alabama 1996 Northern Colorado 1997 Northern Colorado 1998 NW Missouri St 1999 NW Missouri St 2000 Delta State 2001 North Dakota 2002 Grand Valley St. 2003 Grand Valley St. 2004 Valdosta State Other than North Alabama winning 3 NC's in a row, most of the teams have only 2 NC's since 1990. And I don't have to tell anybody here about the teams that have moved on to greener pastures already Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bisonfan01234 Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 Right, so only the teams that can afford to supply 36 scholarships have a chance at winning it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diggler Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 Why attempt to join something, then once you are granted membership complain about how you can't compete in what you just joined? If it was so damn bad, why did you want to join? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petey23 Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 When you make the move up to D2, maybe you should take a look at what the scholarship levels are at first to see if it the right move for you conference or school? Grant based aid?? Isn't that what North Alabama finagled thru their academic aid office which basically gave them the scholarship levels that Alabama would have been proud of?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petey23 Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 So by your arguement, maybe UND should go D1 in all sports!!!! Then we will maintain our current level of scholarship funding and just get Nebraska and Florida to cut their scholarships down so we are all on an even playing field. I like it!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bisonfan01234 Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 Why attempt to join something, then once you are granted membership complain about how you can't compete in what you just joined? If it was so damn bad, why did you want to join? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Have the PSAC and RMAC schools been in D2 from the start? If so then I don't think your argument holds water. If not, then you have a point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bisonfan01234 Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 So by your arguement, maybe UND should go D1 in all sports!!!! Then we will maintain our current level of scholarship funding and just get Nebraska and Florida to cut their scholarships down so we are all on an even playing field. I like it!!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It still wouldn't be a level playing field. UNE and UFL have better facilities, coaches, fan support, and tradition than UND. But at least scholarships would be gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diggler Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 Have the PSAC and RMAC schools been in D2 from the start? If so then I don't think your argument holds water. If not, then you have a point. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not sure, but lets assume they have. Scholarships have been reduced in DII in the last 15 years, correct? Yet these schools still aren't happy. Since they aren't willing to do the things neccessary to compete in the current market, they want to change the market so they can. It's too much work to meet the current standards, so lets just make the standards easier. That's always a good idea. If they are so unhappy with DII, why don't they leave? That certainly seems to be what UND will do should this scholarship reduction happen. BTW, I don't know how much better Nebraska's coaches are than UND's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bisonfan01234 Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 But the standard for college sports was no scholarships. That's the way it started out, anyway. Scholarships were only added later as a way to pay players without actually "paying" them. There's too much money tied to college sports now. It's basically the NFL minor leagues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 But the standard for college sports was no scholarships. That's the way it started out, anyway. Scholarships were only added later as a way to pay players without actually "paying" them. There's too much money tied to college sports now. It's basically the NFL minor leagues. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hockey has a minor league, while football does not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bisonfan01234 Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 Hockey has a minor league, while football does not. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> We're talking about football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 We're talking about football. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thank you mister obvious. I was pointing out the fact that many a sport has a minor league, while football does not, and that may be part of the reason you pointed out that college football in particular has become "the NFL minor leagues." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bisonfan01234 Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 Thank you mister obvious. I was pointing out the fact that many a sport has a minor league, while football does not, and that may be part of the reason you pointed out that college football in particular has become "the NFL minor leagues." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And I don't think it should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ethanm Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 The following quote is regarding Title IX. But this legislation could have an unintended consequence. Funding for women's athletics could be reduced because football will no longer be taking as much funding on the men's side. Maybe we should try and get the Title IX activists on board by making them see how this would likely lead to scholarships being taken away from women. If that did happen, that would be the first time I'd ever seen a positive with Title IX in regards to football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmrg74 Posted January 10, 2005 Author Share Posted January 10, 2005 The following quote is regarding Title IX. Maybe we should try and get the Title IX activists on board by making them see how this would likely lead to scholarships being taken away from women. If that did happen, that would be the first time I'd ever seen a positive with Title IX in regards to football. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Right, cutting 8 scholerships from football means they can then go cut 8 scholorships from womens teams. Whats good for the Goose here is good for the Gander as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND92,96 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 According to Brandon Misener from d2football.com, the proposal to cut scholarships failed by a 2 to 1 margin. Great news for now, but we all know the people behind this proposal will just come back next year with a slightly smaller proposed cut... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bisonguy Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 According to Brandon Misener from d2football.com, the proposal to cut scholarships failed by a 2 to 1 margin. Great news for now, but we all know the people behind this proposal will just come back next year with a slightly smaller proposed cut... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The previous version of football grant reductions (down to 30), only failed by six votes a couple years ago. Good to see the vast majority aren't in favor of such a drastic cut this time around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LyRoMaTo Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 If scholarships do get cut down in division 2 then that will force UND to persue the next level. If UND does do D-IAA Then they will have to eliminate other teams such as softball, baseball, swimming and any other sport that doesn't make any revenue. UND will not allow its self to become watered down it will want more scholarships to keep up with that place they call AgTech aka NDSU. They can have their sheep down there and UND will just keep winning games and championships. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 What scholarship reduction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 What scholarship reduction? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Future. I won't disagree. I think this gambit for "36 --> 24" was actually a red herring. That's too much of a change all at once and everyone knew it. However, now that people have talked about "24", proposing going down to "30" in a year or two doesn't sound quite as shocking. I suspect that a "30" proposal is coming sooner rather than later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bisonguy Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 I won't disagree. I think this gambit for "36 --> 24" was actually a red herring. That's too much of a change all at once and everyone knew it. However, now that people have talked about "24", proposing going down to "30" in a year or two doesn't sound quite as shocking. I suspect that a "30" proposal is coming sooner rather than later. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Especially since the previous proposal to reduce DII football grants to 30 only failed by six votes a few years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.